Zelophehad's Daughters2015-03-30T07:16:40Zhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/feed/atom/WordPressZiffhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=113252015-03-30T07:16:40Z2015-03-30T07:16:40ZContinue reading →]]>What do patterns in Church practice and patterns in the stories we hear in Church teach us? I was thinking about this question recently after reading the #VisibleWomen series at the Exponent. The question of how patterns teach was brought to my mind because the whole series seems to be built on this idea. The purpose of the series is to make suggestions to Church leaders about ways that women could be made more visible in areas like Church art, in giving talks, and in conducting their own session of Conference. The subtitle explains the reason: “You can’t be what you can’t see.” The suggestion of this line is that patterns of practice in the Church like how infrequently women are portrayed, how rarely Heavenly Mother is mentioned, and how women aren’t even allowed to conduct their own Conference session, are conveying messages to women that are limiting their view of themselves.

I used to be a statistics teacher, and in that role, I often thought about how patterns can teach. One way the issue came up was when I used example data to teach my students about a statistical test. They would sometimes draw conclusions from irrelevant patterns in my examples. For example, if I illustrated use of a test using two examples, one where the data were temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit, and the other where the data were temperatures in degrees Celsius, students might conclude that the test could only be used when the data were temperatures, but not if they were shot put distances or cell phone provider preference ratings or rat body sizes or any other type of data. Or if the data I showed were all rounded to the nearest ten, students might conclude that the test could only be used with data that had been similarly rounded.

I’m not at all surprised that my students did this. People are great at finding and generalizing patterns. The upside of this is that it made teaching easier: students picked up on many real patterns in how different tests could be used without my ever having to state them explicitly. This generalizes far beyond the classroom. Much of what we learn (probably most of it) comes from observing patterns in what other people do, rather than from having people explicitly explain things to us.

What I tried to do with my students to avoid accidentally teaching things I didn’t intend to with irrelevant patterns was to vary the characteristics of my examples as much as possible to break up the incorrect patterns. For example, if I wanted to avoid conveying that a test could only be used for temperature data, I might show one example that used temperature data and another that used something completely different, like elephant tusk length data. If I wanted to avoid conveying that a test required values rounded to the nearest ten, I would show data where values were rounded at different points.

In case my statistics-related examples are too dense, here’s one that might be more straightforward. If I were teaching someone about parts of speech, and I introduced adjectives with the examples “orange,” “blue,” and “green,” it wouldn’t be surprising if the person I was teaching concluded that only colors qualified as adjectives. I would be better off using a set of examples that broke up the pattern I didn’t want to convey, so something like “orange,” “hairy,” and “difficult.”

Getting back to my opening question, there are many obvious patterns in what we do in the Church, and these patterns convey clear messages, even without anything being stated explicitly. I thought it might be interesting to list some of these patterns and briefly outline what they’re teaching. Many of them come not even from our practice but from the types of stories that are taught (in Conference, Church magazines, and in lesson manuals).

Ordinances are performed by men. Ordinances allow us to make or renew covenants with God. Sometimes, as in blessing the sacrament, those performing them are actually standing in for Jesus. This pattern teaches that men are closer to God, and that they can stand for God in a way that women can’t.

Ordinances are witnessed by men. Not only are priesthood ordinances performed by men, the official witnesses have to be men. This pattern teaches that men’s points of view matter; they count; they can be trusted. Women’s don’t; they can’t.

In meetings where both men and women are present, men nearly always preside. Men preside over sacrament meetings and stake conferences and certainly General Conference (although here’s a suggestion from the Exponent’s series for changing the women’s session). This pattern teaches that leadership is a male role, and that women shouldn’t preside over men.

Men speak in congregational meetings more than women. At the local ward or branch level, this is likely to be true even if only because high councilors are always men, and there are no women who periodically visit and speak (although here’s a suggestion from the Exponent’s series or changing this). As meetings draw bigger groups of people, the speaker list becomes more dominated by men. Stake conferences typically tilt more heavily male than sacrament meetings. And General Conferences are the most male-dominated of all. The whole pattern cycles back on itself when General Conference talks are used as the basis for sacrament meeting talks (not to mention Teachings for Our Time lessons), so even when women are speaking in sacrament meeting, they’re likely to be quoting mostly men. In addition, when both women and men speak in a meeting, men usually speak last, which follows the pattern in General Conference (and in the world in general) where the highest-status or highest-authority speaker speaks last. This pattern teaches that it’s more important to listen to men than to women; as a meeting becomes more important, it becomes more important that we hear from women less in it.

Money is handled by men. Bishopric and branch presidency members take tithing. They and always-male clerks count tithing and deposit it. Bishops and branch presidents decide on budgets. This pattern, I think particularly the requirement that clerks be male when there’s no priesthood function they’re serving, teaches that money should be controlled by men and not by women.

General Authorities are all men. This pattern teaches that God prefers men, and that it’s more important to listen to men.

General Authorities are almost all white. The higher you go (from Seventies to the FP and Q of 12), the whiter they get. This pattern teaches that God prefers white mouthpieces, and that it’s more important to listen to white people than people of color.

General Authorities all speak English. It may not be their first language, but they all do. Most (until very last year, all) General Conference talks are given in English. This pattern teaches that English is preferred by God, and is a better language than other languages.

Primary presidencies are always women. (I’m sure someone will cite me an example of a situation where no women were available and a man was called, but certainly this would be an extremely unusual exception.) This pattern teaches that teaching and caring for children is something women should do rather than men.

Stories: Tithing always leads to temporal blessings. Have you ever read a story in the Ensign about a family that had to choose between paying their tithing and their rent, and they paid their tithing and got kicked out of their apartment and ended up on the street? Me neither. Correlated stories where people struggle to pay their tithing but then choose to pay it always end with temporal blessings.

Stories: Sex always leads to unhappiness. Correlated stories that mention sex always talk about bad outcomes: unplanned pregnancy, dropping out of school, STIs, emotional upheaval. When sex has positive outcomes, like closeness between marital partners or having children, sex doesn’t get mentioned. It’s just “they got married and were happy and had kids.”

Stories: Prophets (and Church leaders in general) are infallible. Correlated stories about people who struggle to follow a Church teaching always end up with them either deciding to follow it and having a good outcome or deciding not to follow it and having a bad outcome. Even when following a Church leader appears to have a bad outcome, in the end, it always has a good one. The story of the old man who defends the decision to leave late with the Willie and Martin handcart companies because it looked like a mistake at the time, but he was grateful because it was “the price we paid to become acquainted with God” is the prototypical example.

Stories: Women are always happier as mothers than having careers. Correlated stories about women struggling to decide whether to go to more school or focus on a career on one hand or stay at home with their kids (or start having kids and stay home with them) always end with them staying at home and being happy or sticking with school or work and being disappointed.

Stories: Couples are always happier when they have more kids. Correlated stories about people deciding how many children to have never end with a couple deciding to have one more child and finding that it sends the mother into deep depression or pushes the family over the edge financially. They always end up grateful for the child. Such stories may also describe couples who are sad that they didn’t have all the kids they wanted to. No stories tell of happy childless couples, or couples who decided after some number of kids that they were done, and who end up being happy with the decision.

Stories: People only leave the Church because they’re lazy or evil or choosing to be offended, and they always regret the decision. Nobody ever leaves because of genuine concerns with Church doctrines or practices, either in the present or the past. And they never end up happy. Unless they come back, that is.

Stories: Prayers are always answered. Correlated stories have people praying for lost keys and lost children, and they’re pretty much always found. This pattern teaches that God is ready to jump in and solve anything we need solved, large or small, no matter how difficult, and therefore if we’re finding that our problems aren’t solved quickly after praying, we must be bad somehow.

Stories: Non-Mormons always respect Mormon beliefs. Correlated stories of people standing up for what they believe in and fearing that others will mock them always have happy endings where people say something like, “I think it’s great you don’t drink alcohol.” No such stories ever end with people saying (as I expect might be more common now), “Dude, why do you all care whether gay people get married?”

Stories: Lost sheep always want to be found. Correlated stories of diligent visiting and home teachers, and persistent family members who prod their non-practicing friends and family members to go back to church always conclude with the friends and family members happily back in full activity. Such stories never feature non-practicing people who just want to be left alone, or who are happy to have relationships that aren’t church-related.

Stories: Non-Mormons typically want to be Mormon. Correlated stories about reluctant investigators typically end with the reluctant investigator baptized, or going to the temple, or becoming a bishop. Stories about random encounters with non-Mormons also frequently end with them being baptized. They typically don’t end up with people deciding that they’re happy with the church they’re already in, or with no church at all.

I have a few concluding thoughts, but they don’t relate that well to each other, so I’ll make a list:

One question that remains open for me about all these patterns is how often they’re used intentionally to teach, and how often they’re just incidental, and accidentally conveying messages that aren’t actually intended. It seems likely to me that at least some patterns are sending an intended message. For example, I think all the patterns that place men in positions of authority and importance ahead of women are probably conveying intended messages. These patterns are old and they are everywhere in the Church, and if pressed on them (as we’ve seen with the discussion surrounding OW), GAs and PR people come up with all kinds of justifications for them. This suggests these patterns are not accidental. With other messages, though, like tithing always bringing material blessings, I wonder if they don’t come about inadvertently. Perhaps there are rules for the Church curriculum folks that say they can’t print anything that’s not faith-promoting, and so to be safe, they avoid printing anything where someone pays tithing and a bad thing happens, even if the person frames it in such a way as to conclude that tithing is still a true principle. It’s easy to see how this kind of thinking might lead to the pattern we see, where stories can never tell of a bad thing happening after tithing is paid, even if nobody writing or choosing the stories actually thinks this is how the world is. That explaining of the process doesn’t mean, though, that the message isn’t still sent by the pattern in the stories.

It’s clear that the co-existence of patterns that teach one thing while explicit Church rhetoric teaches something else actually serves an important function, both for Church leaders and for some members. Going back to the example of the sexist patterns, this disconnect between the rhetoric and the practice is exactly what Kiskilili pointed out and labeled chicken patriarchy in her post a few years ago. It allows GAs to have it both ways with what they say about men and women. With their rhetoric, they praise women, and try to show themselves to be not too out of step with a culture where it’s no longer accepted to just come out and say that men are better or more important than women, but with their practice, they go right on perpetuating the patterns that convey precisely those messages. Similarly, for many Church members, this disconnect allows them to claim that troubling teachings, like sexist ideas or prophetic infallibility, aren’t actually being taught because they aren’t being stated explicitly.

Once we’ve spent a lot of time in the Church, perhaps we’ve learned to ignore the patterns, or have explained them away as not saying what they pretty obviously do. I think all that’s needed, though, to make them clear again, is a fresh set of eyes. Kids often do a great job of this, pointing out uncomfortable and obvious things that we’ve learned to carefully tiptoe around, like that we do treat men as being more important than women. Non-Mormon friends can do this for us too. I’ve heard several people say that even thinking about explaining some Church practices to friends not steeped in the convoluted explanations we’re all so familiar with throws the blatant sexism of our practices into bold relief.

In the end, perhaps I’m not so much concerned with which of these patterns are intended and which are accidental or what function they might be serving. I just wanted to bring them up and point out that they’re present, and that they do send clear messages.

]]>9Lynnettehttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=113322015-03-18T01:19:26Z2015-03-18T01:15:49ZContinue reading →]]>The March 2015 Ensign includes a BYU-I devotional from Elder Dallin H. Oaks titled, “Stand as Witnesses of God,” which divides the world into believers and unbelievers. Oaks pulls no punches in critiquing the latter, using the term “anti-Christ” to describe atheists, and asserting that the Great and Abominable Church is “any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God.” I find this framework to be troubling, and this characterization of atheists to be unfair.

Oaks isn’t sure that atheists really have moral standards. He is worried that “today many deny or doubt the existence of God and insist that all rules of behavior are man-made and can be accepted or rejected at will.” But this doesn’t necessarily follow. You can believe that rules are (human)-made without seeing them as something to be cavalierly rejected or accepted. You can still take ethics seriously. Oaks acknowledges that atheists are not necessarily moral relativists but raises the concern that “absolute standards not based on belief in God are difficult to explain.” The moral values of atheists are suspect, in other words, because he fails to find any persuasive reason for them. But unbelievers could make a similar move, critiquing believers by making the case that their moral principles are based on something imaginary and are therefore not to be trusted. I think we would all do well to acknowledge the ability of people to make genuine moral commitments regardless of their status as believers or unbelievers.

And perhaps even more troubling, Oaks never touches on the possibility that one might have absolute moral standards based on a belief in God and do awful things. The fact that something is grounded in one’s beliefs about the divine does not in and of itself make it of good report or praiseworthy. Too many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, I think, for us to casually assume that religious values are bound to be positive ones.

In asserting the need to stand up for belief in God, Oaks points to the growing irreligiosity of greeting cards. “In recent years the inclusion of religious symbols and reverent words in Christmas greetings and sympathy cards has almost disappeared.” This sounds akin to the suspicion that the adoption of the term “Happy Holidays” is some kind of plot to undermine religion. It seems to me that both of these shifts likely come from market forces, as businesses seek to appeal to a wide swath of a population which is becoming more and more religiously pluralist. (In other words, they are a product of capitalism—which is somewhat ironic, since those who raise these concerns tend to be staunch capitalists.) If we lived in a totalitarian state where it was in fact illegal to print religious greeting cards, I think I could take the concern more seriously.

It is true, Oaks says, that “our nations include and are blessed by citizens of Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian persuasions, as well as by atheists.” (So maybe not all atheists are bad? I’m not sure how this fits with his earlier remarks). In any case, make no mistake. At least in America, Christianity is the best. “The United States was founded by persons and leaders who were predominantly Christians and who embodied the principles of their faith in the Constitution, laws, and culture of the nation.” Even setting aside the question of whether this is historically accurate (a real question), I am puzzled about his point. Is he arguing that Christianity should hold some privileged position? That seems untenable in a society as religiously pluralistic as ours. Not to mention that it is odd coming from a member of a church which is not always seen as Christian.

In general, however, Oaks seems less concerned with Christianity per se than with belief. He tells us, “we need to support the coalitions of religious leaders and God-fearing people who are coming together to defend the traditional culture of belief in God and the acknowledgment of His blessings.” It appears that as long as you’re religious, as long as you believe in God, you can be in the club. This also comes through in his advocacy of public prayer—”whatever the designated pray-er’s concept of God and whatever his or her religious persuasion or language of prayer,” this is something worth fighting for.

Once again, the world is divided into believers and unbelievers. The believers need to form coalitions to defend themselves. One thing I find striking about this is the utter lack of acknowledgment that there are differences between religions, sometimes radical ones. Not every religion even has a concept of “God” in the way that monotheists use the term (and the monotheists, of course, have plenty of disagreements among themselves as to what the term means). All of this is irrelevant, Oaks seems to be saying. If you are religious, you are one of the good guys, and we need to stand together. “Religion” is a kind of undifferentiated lump.

But even if we set aside the theological differences, it is worth noting that religions support a wide variety of social causes, and do not always have that much common ground. Gay marriage would be an obvious example of an issue about which different churches have taken very different positions. This is true of a whole host of social issues, from the appropriate use of torture to one’s attitude toward the government. In fact, not every church even advocates public prayer. When I hear about this coalition of the religious, I have to confess that I am suspicious—I think what I’m actually hearing is a call for a coalition of social conservatives.

The worldview in which the primary moral conflict is between believers and unbelievers is deeply problematic. It melds all religion together in a way that has little to do with religion as it actually exists, unfairly demonizes atheists, and ignores the painful reality that believers can and do cause all kinds of harm in the world. I have many friends and relatives who do not believe in God and who clearly follow moral principles in their lives. And I find it very, very difficult to believe that they are a greater problem in the world than, say, religious extremists.

]]>11Lynnettehttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=113132015-03-05T19:30:07Z2015-03-05T19:30:07ZContinue reading →]]>Agency is central to LDS theology. We fought a war in the pre-mortal existence to preserve it, and it is an essential part of becoming like God. For this reason, one of the aspects of patriarchy that I find most disturbing is the way in which it affects agency, particularly female agency.

To make sense of this assertion, I need to start with a discussion of the nature of freedom. Mormons as well as other moderns tend to have what is called in theology a Pelagian understanding of freedom, as advocated by the early fifth-century Christian thinker Pelagius in his ongoing dispute with the well-known theologian Augustine. For Pelagius, freedom means the absolute ability to choose good or evil. The will is neutral, un-inclined in either direction, and entirely autonomous. Although in reality all humans fall short, perfection is in fact within human reach—there is no reason why a human being could not in theory make all the right choices. Sin is external to the will, something we choose; it does not infect the will itself.

There are a number of problems with this model. Perhaps most significantly, this approach does not reflect the actual experience of choosing. We do not make decisions in some neutral setting which is carefully insulated from the world. We do not exist, as one theologian puts it, “as executors of absolute choice in some kind of antiseptic neutrality above the involvements of real life.”1 From such a perspective, rather than having a person making a choice, we have an isolated, neutral will, which cannot be connected to any particular characteristics of the person. The will gets disconnected from ourselves as whole persons—ultimately, “a Pelagian account of willing saves the freedom of the will but loses the person.”2

I prefer an Augustinian model, which holds that the will is never neutral; it is always inclined in some direction. It does not exist in some isolated, detached sphere from which it surveys good and evil and then makes a choice between them. The will as we actually experience it is always oriented in some direction, always shaped by our desires and our moral judgments. Agency is exercised in a context of some kind, both internally and externally. From this perspective, we can talk about sin as infecting the will. Sin is not simply an alternate choice, after all; it is something that closes off possibilities.

This brings me to original sin. I realize that off-the-cuff, Mormons are likely to say that we do not believe in original sin. But what I think this assertion actually means is that we do not believe that children are born tainted in such a way that infant baptism is necessary. If we are talking about original sin as the reality which shapes our lives and our very nature after the Fall, such a perspective can be found throughout the Book of Mormon. Perhaps the most oft-cited comment on the subject is King Benjamin’s remark that “the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit.”3 But King Benjamin is not alone in this sharply negative assessment of the natural human condition. This an idea repeated throughout the book. Alma explains that the Fall resulted a “a spiritual death as well as a temporal,” which means that humans have become “carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature.”4 According to the brother of Jared, “because of the fall our natures have become evil continually.”5 I think it is fair to say that the Augustinian view that the will itself can be corrupted is displayed in such passages.

How does this work, exactly? Contemporary theological models appeal to social structures as the means of transmitting original sin. We find ourselves in these sinful structures prior to conscious choice. As one theologian puts it, “before being able to choose, one is, merely by being historically situated, inextricably caught in an immense web of reciprocity in evil that one cannot escape and that has forming power.”6 These structures literally affect who we are, as aspects of society become embedded in a person’s most basic sense of self. It is from this perspective that we can talk about sin as in some sense corrupting human nature.

Sin in this sense is used in the singular, understood as a power, state, or condition, something that has cast its shadow over human existence—as opposed to “sins,” as particular, discrete human acts. These two uses of the term reflect the tension between talking about sin as something outside of us, outside of our control, and as something in which we are individually involved. The basic paradox in this notion of sin is that there is a way in which it is beyond our control, and yet also a way in which we choose it and are therefore accountable for it. We run into problems if we lose sight of either side.

I have found the work of Anglican theologian Alistair McFadyen to be particularly helpful in illuminating how the two interact. McFadyen is critical of much modern discourse on the subject of sin, with its emphasis on independence and autonomous choice. In the moral framework posited by modernity, he observes, freedom is understood as freedom from external forces. But this causes us to frame things in an either/or way—either I resist external forces, or I am overpowered by them—that does not actually connect to our experience of sin in the world. As mentioned earlier, we cannot pull out something called “personal will” and talk about it in isolation from other forces, because the very notion of personal will is already entangled in broader dynamics. The situations in which we are embedded exert more than an external pressure which overrides our individual will and forces us into particular behaviors; they actually appropriate the will.

How does this appropriation happen? The social dynamics in which we find ourselves shape our view of what is good, what is desirable, and therefore the way in which we make judgments. The problem is not that we have lost our ability to choose between alternatives. The problem is that our relation to those alternatives has been distorted. The way in which sin diminishes freedom, then, is not that it takes away our capacity to choose; what it does is “appropriate the means and criteria by and direction in which choices are made.”7 Sin is “an unavoidable reality conditioning and shaping our freedom.”8

Original sin, in other words, works by shaping the values, the norms, by which a person makes judgments. And what is the source of the norms and values which shape the will? On what basis do we judge something as good? I believe we draw on social and cultural narratives. Narratives serve an ethical purpose—it is through narratives that we learn to distinguish right and wrong, determine what goods are worth pursuing. Narratives are never neutral; they are always oriented in some direction, and they convey particular values. We cannot examine human acts in isolation, for our actions are always embedded in stories—and therefore, like the stories, have a teleological element, are aimed at a particular purpose, are guided by certain values. If sin has to do with values and norms, then, it is inevitably tied up with narrative.

And destructive narratives have the ability to undermine freedom, as they shape identity in problematic ways. A crucial point here is that narrative identity is not something we construct on our own, but is something which arises from our interpersonal context. I draw here on the work of Hilde Lindemann Nelson, who looks at the effects of oppressive narratives. She makes the point that “identity is a question of how others understand what I am doing, as well as how I understand what I am doing.”9 This is particularly important when we are talking about a person’s agency, because her ability to act freely depends on both the perception of others that she is morally trustworthy, an agent, and her own perception, her own view of herself as a moral agent. Agency arises interpersonally, in other words, as it requires recognition of one’s actions by both oneself and by others.

This brings me (finally) to patriarchy. I am not arguing that patriarchy is the original sin, but I do think it is destructive, and I find all of this to be helpful in making sense of how it functions. On an external level, it is fairly clear how patriarchy undermines female agency. Men are put in charge; they preside over women. Women thus have fewer opportunities, and have their actions constrained by male decisions. But patriarchy is more than an external system which subjugates women. It shapes our understanding of what it is to be a person in the first place. In a patriarchal system, to be a person, to be a full moral agent, is to be male. In the biblical narrative, Eve is created for Adam. Women’s very existence is explained in term of how it benefits men. All too often women are not even subjects, but objects, as in D&C 132, where they are part of men’s eternal reward. That the male is the default is bolstered by male-centric scriptures, and the worship of a male God.

In shaping the cultural narratives from which we construct our identity, patriarchy affects us internally as well as externally. It is “a pathology that distorts our internal dynamics.”10 Going back to what I said earlier, the problem is not that this system overcomes or stifles the will, leaving us unable to choose. The problem is that this form of social distortion shapes the will itself. In other words, this is not a Pelagian sort of choosing; we do not have a neutral will, which can survey the options and decide whether or not to select patriarchy. Rather, patriarchy becomes ” the basis and foundation of all choosing and acting, as the rules by which one makes choices.”11 Female attempts to challenge patriarchy are shut down by a system which interprets women’s experience through the lens of patriarchal norms, and de-legitimizes any experience which challenges the status quo.

Take, for example, the idea that men should lead, and women follow. One might argue that women still have their agency in such a situation, because they can choose whether or not to follow. But the problem is not that a woman loses the ability to say yes or no; it is that this choice is already shaped by patriarchal norms and values. It is taking place in the context of a worldview in which authority and obedience are central, and significant questions are things like who is the leader and who is the follower. In such a system, a woman’s choices are framed solely in terms of compliance and rebellion. Being limited to those options restricts her agency to a very narrow set of options.

Additionally, and perhaps even more disturbingly, putting a woman in this subordinate position conveys the message that her ability to make decisions cannot be trusted. Women are not viewed as full moral agents. Going back to Nelson’s work, oppressive narratives arise when “a powerful social group views the members of her own, less powerful group as unworthy of full moral respect.”12 Such narratives affect both of the perceptions of others, and the way in which an individual views herself. What is particularly troubling is that when someone believes a story in which she is not a full moral agent, she cannot simply challenge it rationally, because the story already identifies her as someone who cannot trust her own judgment.13 The narrative has already shaped her values in such a way that she loses the ability to challenge it. Oppressive narratives, then, diminish a person’s ability to act as a full moral agent by undermining that identity in both her own eyes, and in the perceptions of others.

Does this leave us with any hope? Is it possible to challenge patriarchy when all of us find it already shaping our values? I see hope in proposing alternate narratives, alternate worldviews. Take the tired notion that men have to preside in a family because someone has to be in charge, has to be authorized to make the final decision. This makes sense if one sees the highest good as efficiency, easy and clear decision-making. As mentioned above, it is steeped in a worldview which values hierarchy and authority.

The answer, then, is not simply to resist the authority; it is to resist the entire worldview. What might be an alternative? One possibility is a perspective in which the highest good is relationship. From such an angle, a hierarchical relationship between men and women is problematic because it undermines healthy relationships. Decision-making may become more difficult as a result, as one has to engage in the difficult work of negotiation and compromise—but this is ultimately positive, as it strengthens relationships. Since humans are fundamentally relational beings, this promotes development and growth for both women and men. Freedom is much richer, and has all kinds of creative possibilities.

But how do we judge between different narratives? What case can be made that the alternate worldview I propose here is superior to a patriarchal one? One way to make such an evaluation is to look at which perspective most promotes human flourishing. This is very much in line with teachings about mortality as a place for humans to develop their abilities and capacities. And if we truly do value agency, we need to examine the ways in which patriarchal narratives negatively affect it.

]]>18Galdralaghttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=113152015-03-06T16:41:24Z2015-03-04T17:32:04ZContinue reading →]]>I play the piano for a small Methodist congregation on Sunday mornings. They meet in one of the oldest Methodist churches in the South, a small, lovely brick building in a sleepy old town. It is not large enough to house a pipe organ. The pastor, who interviewed, auditioned, and ultimately hired me, is a young, 40-something woman, recently ordained. She and her husband – he sits in the pews with their three children every Sunday – are fugitives from a much stricter Baptist tradition.

I took the job for purely practical reasons; I needed a form of income that was not too time consuming but would enable me to help support my family while writing my dissertation. Yet, increasingly as time passes, I find myself surprised at my weekly reactions – emotional, intellectual, and spiritual – to the experience of having a woman preside. Her sermons bring up ideas that refuse to leave my mind, and everywhere in her speech are inclusive metaphors of female experience. Although, of course, some of the basic teachings and traditions of Methodism are distinct from Mormonism – the examples below will make that obvious – the parallels are striking enough that, while listening to her, I feel I am beginning to develop a vision of what real female leadership from ordained women would look like in an LDS setting. Here are two examples from sermons that have remained with me:

1. During the Christmas season, she — following the standard Methodist liturgical calendar — preached one week on the Magnificat, or the words of praise uttered by Mary when visiting her cousin Elizabeth (see Luke 1: 46- 55). The pastor centered her sermon by reflecting on narrative patterns of “calling” in the Bible, noting the arc from the Old Testament forward of God calling men and women, them refusing or balking at the prospect, God offering a sign, and the person accepting.

She offered Moses as one of the most familiar examples of these narratives, including Moses’ suggestion to God of Aaron as the more obvious candidate and the miracle of the burning bush.

Returning to the week’s Advent theme, the pastor then talked more about the Annunciation and Mary, noting that Mary didn’t reject her call from God; she simply marveled at it and asked how it would work, then glorified God in the Magnificat.

She said that Mary was the human that came closest to God in all of history and lived to tell the tale; that she became herself a “burning bush,” touched by God and yet not consumed by the fire. She then stated, “This makes Mary the greatest of the prophets.”

She added that when life throws us curveballs, perhaps we should experience them without trepidation or fear. Perhaps they are like the “shadow of the Most High” working in us; that our fear is really the “morning sickness” of a great work.

I was sitting on the front pew, about to return to the piano, and I was overcome and almost couldn’t play. I realized I had never really fully imagined a woman preaching to a congregation filled with both men and women and saying such things – using feminine metaphors about calling; claiming without fear that Mary was the greatest prophet. I looked out and saw the old men in the congregation nodding along placidly; saw that men – even old Southern men – can accept such notions. It was, for me in that moment, raw and beautiful.

2. Recently the pastor was delivering a sermon about idolatry. As is the case in most good homilies, she sought to make the concept applicable to her congregants, but the example she chose caught me up short.

She began speaking about chastity and Christian purity culture. (Here in the South, many Christians purchase purity rings, make purity pledges, and go through elaborate religious rituals involving promises not to have sex before marriage.)

The pastor was careful in her sermon – she emphasized that she was teaching her own daughter to be, in her words, “a good girl” – but then she paused. She explained that one of her daughter’s best friends had become involved with Christian purity culture. This young girl had become obsessed with the idea of her own virginity and that of her young friends. It was one of the only subjects she tended to linger on; it had become her metric for determining other peoples’ moral goodness. Virginity was everything to her. The pastor then said:

“For those for whom Christian purity culture becomes their central focus and their defining identity, could it be that purity and chastity are becoming their idols? That they are focusing over-much on what is ultimately something that impacts only a small portion of their lives; that instead of concerning themselves with the good works, kindness, and charitable living that helps us as Christians to try to make the kingdom of God here, now, among us, they are being distracted by hyper-focus on one small component of Christianity? And,” she continued, “after all, what is one of these kids to do if they make a mistake?”

She finished, “Our focus should be, in all things, to seek to make our lives this very day a heaven; to live the kingdom of God on earth. When we find ourselves obsessing over small details – and those details will vary from person to person – we are idolizing them.”

I admit that I am more than a little curious about how most Mormons would react to this second example. I am still turning it over in my mind, but it is clear that purity culture was, for her, just one representative token; she could just as easily have said modesty culture. (She has indicated through her sermons that, to her, what is good and important and liberating for one person can be a crutch for another; she is, mercifully, not one size fits all.)

I leave most Sundays now wondering what it would be like practically and experientially if Mormon women had the authority to preside, to reveal, to proclaim doctrine, and to make choices at an equal level with Mormon men. Would we hear more female-centered stories and metaphors? Would we talk about the psychological and spiritual effects of hyper-focusing on sexuality or modesty? What else would be different?

A recent speaker in my local Sunday services quoted a recent reminder from one of our Twelve Apostles: We Latter-day Saints haven’t been persecuted for many years, but scripture foretells the day will return when we again will be. Of course, I believe we might yet avoid this, and both we and the rest of humanity could repent of our various evils and avoid destruction–as Nineveh did after Jonah’s call to repentence–but if this is true (and I don’t doubt it is a possibility) then I want to say what I hope we will be persecuted for.

I hope we will be persecuted because we mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort. Because we reach out to the downtrodden and the marginalized. Because we sup with the sinner and walk among the unclean. Because we make a place at the table for those who don’t really belong amongst us–the impure and those we fear–and because we are vulnerable enough to turn the other cheek when they take advantage of our goodness and abuse us.

I hope we will be persecuted because we lay up treasures in heaven and reject the riches of this world. Because we refuse to sell our power for gain, and instead use it to uplift the poor rather than defend and maintain the rich.

I hope we will be persecuted because we believe in God and Science. That those who only see the spiritual will call us unfaithful materialists, and those who only seek the tangible will call us superstitious fools. And despite this we will proclaim the value of religion and science. We will embrace the new revelations of each as we seek out all truth and gather it into a grand view of Mormonism, whatever lowly or impure source might share it with us.

I do hope we might be persecuted for testifying of Christ. His atonement and resurrection, and every one of us partaking in them and making them real for all generations of humanity, are the way for humanity to live on. I hope we will be persecuted for taking on us all the sins and pains and evils of humanity, and willingly bearing them just as far as we can–whether anyone accepts our gifts or not.

If we are to be persecuted, let it not be because we fight change. Let it not be because we assume we know and cease seeking further light about anything. Let it not be because we elevate cultural norms to be the will of God. Let it not be because we construct ideological fences for fear of losing our identity or to protect our fragile hero worship of dead prophets, or our egotistical clinging to creeds outworn. Let it be because of our positive actions in blessing the poor, comforting the rejected, abused, and powerless, endlessly seeking truth, and fearlessly seeking at-one-ment with all humanity.

]]>7Lynnettehttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=111842015-02-26T03:57:13Z2015-02-26T03:55:19ZContinue reading →]]>I detest strawberries. I shudder when I see my sisters eating them by the handful, or chopping them up for their cereal. I pick them out of salad so as not to ruin the flavor of the other ingredients. And I am horrified when people waste perfectly good chocolate by slathering it on strawberries. Since I’m also not fond of raspberries or tomatoes, a friend once accused me of having a phobia of red fruits. This is demonstrably false, as I will cheerfully eat a cherry or a red delicious apple. But keep the strawberries far from me.

When I share this particular dislike, some people react with disbelief. You don’t really dislike strawberries, they assure me. The problem is that you just haven’t encountered a genuine strawberry. The versions you’ve tried were all flawed somehow–perhaps transported from too far away, perhaps bred for appearance rather than taste. But if ever you were to sample a true strawberry, the pure Platonic strawberry, you would change your mind. The strawberry would become delicious to you. You would delight in its goodness.

But alas, I fear my objections to strawberries do not lie with the quirks of individual strawberries. I have no doubt that strawberries picked fresh in the wild are vastly superior to those sold in a supermarket. Even as a non-strawberry-lover, I can appreciate that some strawberries are better than others. But it’s the strawberry itself which I find distasteful, regardless of its quality.

My objections to patriarchy are similar. Your problem, people tell me, is that you haven’t experienced “true” patriarchy. You’ve had too many distasteful experiences with unrighteous dominion, and that’s tainted your view. But if only you could experience real patriarchy, you would realize that it is in fact delectable. And it’s true that given a choice, I’d take benign, soft patriarchy over the tyrannical version. But this doesn’t mean I don’t have the same fundamental objections to the former that I do to the latter. I am not interested in being involved in a system in which men rule over women, even if that rule is softened with terms like “preside” and is carried out in the most benevolent of fashions. I simply have no stomach for it.

]]>13Ziffhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=113052015-02-23T20:13:24Z2015-02-23T20:13:24ZContinue reading →]]>This post is a follow-up to my post last week, where I looked at how much members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (Q15) quote from each of the five books of scripture in the LDS canon in their Conference talks. In the previous post, I showed one breakdown for each Q15 member, aggregating his citations of scripture in all his Conference talks, across whatever period of years he served in the Q15. In this post, I’ll show trends across time for each individual Q15 member. The previous analysis would miss it if a GA changed over time from preferring the Book of Mormon to preferring the New Testament, for example. This analysis might be able to show such changes (if they’re large enough). As for the previous post, my data source is the LDS Scripture Citation Index.

The graphs below show seven-year moving averages for the percentages of citations each Q15 member took from each book of scripture. There’s nothing special about seven years for the moving average. I chose it by eyeball. The year-to-year data often jump around a lot, which isn’t surprising given that for Q15 members who aren’t in the First Presidency, one year’s worth of Conference talks is typically just two talks. Seven years of aggregation looked like a good compromise that smoothed out the yearly variation but didn’t smooth so much that it made changes over time disappear. One other note is that I’ve only made graphs for members who have at least 16 years of data. This allows for 10 years worth of seven-year moving averages to be shown (because the first six years are combined into the initial seven-year moving average).

Graphs for Q15 members are shown in the order they were called, which is the same ordering I used in my previous post. Also, to make it easier to look back and forth between the two posts, I’ve used the same color to represent data for each book of scripture as in the previous post. One warning with these graphs is that the scaling of both the horizontal and vertical axes changes from person to person to best display each Q15 member’s data, so be careful if you’re looking at comparisons across graphs.

It’s interesting that President Benson wasn’t very consistent across time in citing the Book of Mormon most. He had a period of time where he cited it most earlier in his time in the Q15, and then he came back to it when he became Church President, but at other times, he preferred the D&C. In any case, he clearly had a consistent preference for latter-day scriptures over the Bible.

Mark E. Peterson clearly liked the New Testament the most. His pattern of total separation of the New Testament from all other books of scripture is also followed by several other Q15 members.

Elder Stapley’s pattern of going back and forth between the New Testament or the D&C, with the Book of Mormon typically lagging, is also fairly common among Q15 members. It’s present for Marion G. Romney, Marvin J. Ashton, David B. Haight, and James E. Faust. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising considering that the New Testament and the D&C were the #1 and #2 most cited books in Conference from the 1940s to the 1980s (see the second graph in my previous post).

Elder Richards not only has complete separation of the New Testament from all other books, he also has complete separation of the Old Testament from all latter-day scriptures. His preference was the opposite of Ezra Taft Benson’s: the Bible over latter-day scriptures.

The trends over time for Richard L. Evans are interesting, I think, in that it looks like it took him a few years to decide which book he liked most, but once he settled on the D&C, he stuck with it.

I think Hugh B. Brown stands out as the most consistent Q15 member in citing the New Testament. He was always citing it with more than half of his scripture cites, and was usually over 60%.

President Hinckley certainly had some variation across time, but it looks like he never got on Benson’s BoM bandwagon. Right up until the end of his life, he was still citing the Book of Mormon even less often than the Old Testament, and barely more than the Pearl of Great Price.

After some youthful flirtation with the New Testament, President Packer fell pretty solidly into the Ezra Taft Benson mold, going back and forth between the Book of Mormon and the D&C, but clearly preferring both to the Bible.

It’s really difficult to see any trends in Elder Perry’s data. He cited the New Testament the most for a while, while the New Testament’s heyday was coming to a close in Conference, then moved to the Book of Mormon along with (or following) President Benson, and recently has gone against the grain by citing the D&C the most, along with a surprisingly large number of cites of the Pearl of Great Price (given how short it is). Before gathering the data, I was actually expecting more Q15 members’ graphs to look jumbled like this rather than the more clean splits and clear preferences for one book over another that appear in so many of them.

Elder Nelson is another member in the Benson mold, preferring latter-day scriptures to the Bible. He was called very close to the time that Benson became President, so perhaps he was especially influenced by him.

Elder Wirthlin’s late-in-life increase in citing the New Testament is interesting, especially given how consistent his preferences were before that. Dallin H. Oaks, James E. Faust, David B. Haight, and N. Eldon Tanner also had similar changes, although Elder Oaks likely has many years to live, so it will be interesting to see if his New Testament preference continues or drops off.

Elder Scott is in the mold of President Benson and Elder Nelson. He may show the strongest latter-day scripture preference of any of them, sometimes citing the even the Pearl of Great Price more than either the Old or the New Testament.

Elder Holland is an old-school New Testament guy. In the 1970s, he wouldn’t have been unusual, but now he probably is.

One other question that came up on the previous post was whether Q15 member’s preference for different books of scripture changed when they became President. In the following graphs, for each member in these data who became President, I show his breakdown before becoming President, and while he was President. Note that I’ve rounded calling date and talk date to the nearest year, so if a man was called as President during a particular year, I’ve counted all his talks in that year (and in subsequent years) as belonging to the time when he was President.

It looks like President Kimball went heavy on the D&C and Pearl of Great Price as President, relative to how much he had cited them before.

This was already pretty clear from his graph above that shows trends over time, but this highlights that President Benson cited the Book of Mormon a lot while he was President.

President Hunter wasn’t in his role very long, so this is based on little data, but it looks like he cited latter-day scriptures in general more as President than he had before.

President Hinckley shows almost no change comparing before and after.

President Monson has cut down on citing the New Testament, and has gone to the Book of Mormon and D&C more than he did before he was President.

I have one final bit of analysis that might be interesting. I wanted to look at how consistent each Q15 member was in his preferences for citing different books from year to year. Hugh B. Brown, for example, looks remarkably consistent from year to year. He knew what he liked and he stuck with it. L. Tom Perry is at the other end of the spectrum, where he went from citing book the most one year, to citing another the most a few years later. To measure this consistency or inconsistency, I took each man’s overall percentages, aggregating across all the years he was in the Q15 (from the previous post), and calculated the correlation coefficient between these and his yearly percentages of citing each book. This resulted in one correlation for each year, so to summarize them, I took the average of these correlations as a measure of consistency.

The important thing to know about the correlation coefficient is that higher values indicate stronger association between yearly percentages and aggregated percentages (more consistency), and lower values indicate weaker association (more bouncing around). Its maximum value is 1. Its minimum value is -1, but because these correlations are calculated between aggregated data and the individual values that make up the aggregate data, it is difficult to imagine how the average correlations could be negative. Given this, it makes more sense to think of the minimum possible value as 0.

I’ve listed the Q15 members in order from largest to smallest average correlation. This calculation didn’t use the seven-year moving average requirement of 16 years of data, so all members from the previous post (Spencer W. Kimball forward) are included.

Name

Avg

Name

Avg

corr

corr

Hugh B. Brown

0.92

Jeffrey R. Holland

0.71

Alvin R. Dyer

0.91

James E. Faust

0.66

Thomas S. Monson

0.86

Marion G. Romney

0.65

LeGrand Richards

0.86

N. Eldon Tanner

0.63

Neal A. Maxwell

0.84

M. Russell Ballard

0.62

David A. Bednar

0.82

Mark E. Petersen

0.61

Henry B. Eyring

0.81

Boyd K. Packer

0.61

Matthew Cowley

0.80

David B. Haight

0.61

D. Todd Christofferson

0.80

Robert D. Hales

0.60

Russell M. Nelson

0.78

Richard G. Scott

0.60

Marvin J. Ashton

0.78

Adam S. Bennion

0.58

Quentin L. Cook

0.77

Bruce R. McConkie

0.57

Gordon B. Hinckley

0.77

Ezra Taft Benson

0.57

Henry D. Moyle

0.76

Neil L. Andersen

0.52

Dallin H. Oaks

0.74

Spencer W. Kimball

0.52

Howard W. Hunter

0.74

George Q. Morris

0.43

Delbert L. Stapley

0.72

Richard L. Evans

0.35

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

0.72

L. Tom Perry

0.25

Joseph B. Wirthlin

0.71

I actually chose Hugh B. Brown and L. Tom Perry as examples just looking at their graphs, so I’m happy that this measure matches up with my intuition of what looks like consistency and inconsistency.

I’m sorry that I couldn’t get to trying all the suggestions made on the previous post, but I’m always happy to hear other things you think it might be worth looking at, or any comments you have on what I’ve done here.

]]>5Petrahttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=112382015-02-20T17:16:45Z2015-02-20T06:15:51ZContinue reading →]]>Does D&C 132 make you a little confused?

And/or a little angry?

Well, then, join the club. Maybe some silly gifs can ease the pain.

***

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph

inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God. For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was. Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne. Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.

For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless I will bless, and whomsoever you curse I will curse, saith the Lord; for I, the Lord, am thy God.And again, verily I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you give any one on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord, and shall be without condemnation on earth and in heaven.

For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds. And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.

And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant; and behold, and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory. Now, as touching the law of the priesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto. Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

]]>6Ziffhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=112452015-02-18T04:21:33Z2015-02-18T04:21:33ZContinue reading →]]>I wrote a post last year that looked at which books of scripture members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (Q15) quote from most in Conference. In an article published last week, Peggy Fletcher Stack briefly referred to my work in a discussion of the Book of Mormon taking priority over the Bible in Mormon thought. She specifically talked about the influence of Ezra Taft Benson, and it occurred to me that it would be easy to expand my post from just looking at the living members of the Q15 to including past members as well, so we could actually see what President Benson’s numbers looked like. In this post, I’ll look at which books of scripture members of the Q15 back through Spencer W. Kimball quoted most in Conference. Unfortunately, I can’t go farther back than that because the LDS Scripture Citation Index, from which I’m pulling data, only goes back as far as 1942, so Q15 members called before then have incomplete data. President Kimball was called to the Q15 in 1943, so he is the oldest member for whom I have complete data.

This graph shows what percentage of each Q15 member’s scriptural citations in Conference are to each of the five books of scripture in the LDS canon. Note that members are listed in order by calling date.

Looking at President Benson compared to his contemporaries, it looks like Stack’s article was spot on in pointing out that he pushed the Book of Mormon in a unique way. Other than the occasional Marion G. Romney, with his penchant for quoting the D&C, almost everyone quoted the New Testament more than any other book. But Benson took 37% of his quotes from the Book of Mormon, when most others were taking no more than 20%. It’s also clear that he was part of a trend (or was perhaps pushing the trend). Things have changed so much that several living Q15 members quote the Book of Mormon more than any other book, some even more than Benson himself did (e.g., Elder Bednar at 45%).

A quick aside about the cause of the trend: In my last post, I pointed out that the timing of Benson’s famous talk “The Book of Mormon–Keystone of Our Religion” was wrong for it to be the cause of the move toward quoting the Book of Mormon more. He gave the talk after the change had already happened. Given, though, that he was clearly quoting more from the Book of Mormon even before the general shift, it seems likely that he was at least part of the cause of the shift, even if that one talk wasn’t responsible.

Getting back to the trend itself, here’s a graph showing how much each book of scripture has been quoted in Conference by all speakers, since 1942. (This is reproduced from my previous post.)

I adjusted each Q15 member’s percentages to compare them against the prevailing percentages in the years in which he served. For example, President Benson’s quoting of the Book of Mormon was more unusual, given that it occurred mostly in a time when the New Testament was generally quoted the most, than is Elder Bednar’s quoting of the Book of Mormon, given that it has occurred in a time when the Book of Mormon is generally quoted the most. As I did in my previous post, for this graph I calculated the percentage point difference between the Q15 member’s quoting of each book of scripture and the average percentage for all Conferences during the years in which he served.

This really highlights how much President Benson stands out: his +20 percentage point difference is the largest difference in either direction for the Book of Mormon, and his -22 point difference is the largest negative difference for the New Testament (although Howard W. Hunter has a larger absolute difference: +24). By contrast, someone like David B. Haight had opposite preferences: +21 for the New Testament and -15 for the Book of Mormon. Some other Q15 members show different patterns. For example, LeGrand Richards, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson all quote more from both the Old and the New Testaments more than contemporary norms, and less from all three books of latter-day scripture.

Another interesting pattern is that some Q15 members differ more from contemporary norms in general than others. Some members, like Bruce R. McConkie and Dallin H. Oaks, deviate very little. Others, like President Benson and Richard G. Scott, deviate a lot. This last graph shows each member’s absolute deviations from contemporary norms stacked on top of each other. I’ve kept the colors the same to hopefully make clear that what I’m doing here is just to take the bar lengths and stack them up, regardless of whether they represent positive or negative differences.

I’m sorry this one is a little busy, as I’ve preserved a lot of information from the previous graph. Each Q15 member’s bar is broken up into sub-bars that show how much of his deviation is due to deviation in each particular book of scripture. I’ve also distinguished positive and negative deviations by putting a black border around sub-bars that are for negative deviations and leaving the positive deviations with no border. If this is all too much to digest, though, you can get the real message by just looking at the total bar length. President Benson stands out the most from his contemporary norms, with a total absolute deviation (i.e., bar length) of 61 percentage points. Matthew Cowley, Howard W. Hunter, and Thomas S. Monson also stand out as being different than contemporary norms. Dallin H. Oaks and M. Russell Ballard stand out as being very in line with contemporary norms. One other possible trend is that it looks like more recent Q15 members deviate less from their norms than do older members. It’s possible, though, that this is just an illusion caused by incomplete data, and it’s just that they’re (relatively) new in the quorum. It may be that as quorum members age, they fall more out of line with contemporary norms, so this illusion arises because we have only incomplete data for all living members of the Q15. Maybe I’ll look into that question in a future post.

]]>17Ziffhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.comhttp://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=112522015-02-13T21:35:31Z2015-02-13T21:35:19ZContinue reading →]]>My ward is getting divided this Sunday. Or as you can probably guess from my title, it’s not actually a straight-up split of my ward. It’s that I’m in one of three wards that will have its boundaries realigned, and the result will be four new wards.

I’ve been through this process only twice that I remember. One time was when I was about sixteen. My family had lived in the same place for eight years or so, and I was felt pretty comfortable in my ward. Between the time that the realignment was announced and the release of the actual details of who would end up in which ward, I remember being extremely worried about having the ward split cut me off from my best friends in the ward. As I recall, the change ended up making very little difference, at least to me. All my best friends were still in my ward after the split. And in retrospect, it’s kind of odd that I was that concerned. I lived in Utah Valley and the ward was geographically tiny, so even if my friends had been divided away from me, I could have still easily walked the short distance to their houses to visit them.

The other ward division I recall going through was just a couple of years ago, when my wife and I lived in a college town that had two wards that were realigned to make three. I was less worried than I had been as a teen, but I still recall worrying that the people I liked most in the ward would end up split away from me. Again, for me the outcome was very little change. All the people I liked most stayed in the ward with me.

What strikes me about the process of ward boundary realignment is that I know so little about it. The process of how such things come about is pretty much completely opaque to me. So what I’d like to do is pose a few questions about the process and speculate a little about the answer to each, and then hope you, dear reader, will be so kind as to share any knowledge you have in the comments.

What’s the typical timeline between the announcement of the realignment and the announcement of the details of where the new boundaries will be?

In my limited experience, I think it has always been one week. You go to church one week, you learn that your ward will have its boundaries realigned the following week, and then the third week, you start meeting with your new ward. Is this typical, or is it sometimes different? Has anyone gone to church one week and found they had been assigned a new ward, and what that ward was on that very day? Or is the timeline ever longer? Do leaders ever say something like “This ward will be split into two wards, along this road boundary, but one year hence when this new church building is completed”?

Who initiates ward boundary realignment?

Is this a local decision, where bishops talk to their stake presidents and say their ward is too big and should be split, and stake presidents pass the concern up through the hierarchy? Or are there Church employees in Salt Lake who pore over maps and use algorithms to decide when a ward is too big (or perhaps too small and a candidate for being combined with another ward)? Totally speculating, I would guess that the process might be initiated either way, because it’s possible that both the local leaders and visiting general-level leaders and/or Church employees might have insight into different reasons for realigning wards. Local leaders will be aware of problems like that their ward simply doesn’t have enough classrooms to fit in the church building. General leaders or Church employees would be more aware of broader trends that also might affect neighboring wards or stakes, and also of general-level rules or guidelines about how big wards or branches should ideally be.

Who makes the decisions about ward boundary realignment?

Related to the previous question, do stake presidents draw lines? Perhaps with input from bishops? Are female leaders ever consulted? Or again, do people in Salt Lake say where the lines should be? Or do they give general guidelines within which local leaders work? I have to say that the map tool on lds.org makes speculating about where new boundaries will fall far more efficient than it used to be. Rather than trying to remember if the ward boundary runs precisely down this road or that, you can just fire up your browser and see where they all are. Needless to say, in the past week I’ve used this tool a few times with family members and friends to speculate about where the new boundaries will end up being.

What criteria are used to decide where to draw boundary lines?

I’ve heard that a new ward must have a certain minimum number of Melchizedek Priesthood holders and a certain number of full tithe-payers, but I could have this wrong. What other criteria are there? Are boundaries drawn to try to make wards more homogeneous in terms of age (e.g., to put many of the YW/YM in the stake in one ward) or to make them more heterogeneous in terms of age (e.g., to spread the YW/YM out across wards)? Are boundaries drawn to try to follow school district or school attendance boundary lines? If it were up to me, the school boundary lines might be a nice thing to follow where possible, since it would mean that kids in the same ward would be more likely to see each other at school. Are there other boundary lines that ward boundaries might be drawn to try to follow? Cities? States or provinces? Time zones? I also assume that these questions are more or less relevant depending on how densely populated an area is with Mormons. In areas like my Utah Valley ward growing up, wards are so much smaller than any other unit (like school district) that it’s probably trivially easy to keep the boundaries aligned. There are 500 wards in a school district, and it’s only the few out on the borders where the school district boundary is even a question. Similarly, if there are very few Mormons in an area, there are probably multiple school districts in a ward, so it’s not that difficult to make the boundaries mostly line up. It’s only in that in-between space where I imagine it might be difficult to make the boundaries align (again, assuming that’s even a criterion that decision-makers are using).

How often does boundary realignment happen?

I know this must happen fairly often when looked at from the grand scale, since the number of wards announced every April in Conference is always going up. But I wonder how often it happens in the experience of any one person. I’ve lived in four different US states as an adult. Does this increase or decrease my probability of running into boundary realignment? It seems like wherever I’ve lived, I’ve met people who have lived in the same place for decades, and they remember when the ward used to include five cities, and then it shrank to three, and then it became a stake, and so forth. I guess it would make sense that if you live in a growing area, then you’ll see this happening more often, but that if you lived in an area with little net movement of Mormons, that it would be rare.

Who does boundary realignment affect for the better? For the worse?

Like the previous couple of times I’ve been through this, I’m a little anxious about how it will turn out. I’m afraid my best friends in the ward will end up in other wards. But the major reason for this is that I’m a generally anxious person. Like I said above, it’s not that I’ve had bad experiences with the outcomes. I have a teenage son who is very concerned about it, though. We live at one end of the ward, and his two best friends live at the other end of it, so it seems likely that they’ll end up in different wards. So is it harder on teens because everything is harder on teens? Or is there another group it’s harder on that I’m not thinking of? And who might benefit? I guess that might be hard to generalize about, but surely people are sometimes happy about boundary realignment and find the results make their church experience better.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of these questions, or on any other related questions that I didn’t think to ask.